It can increase the performance when you have multi-threaded applications or multiple applications running.  When only a single thread/application is running, it can decrease performance slightly.

 

If you are a gamer (not likely with a 3100), you might want to turn it off.  For general purpose use, you could leave it on. 

 

I'm not surprised you didn't notice the difference. 

 

Peter 

Thank ya kindly an' muchly, Pete -- I'm just an old man that's tryin' to keep up with the new-fangled stuff, but don't have the coin to go totally uber -- I sniffed around the INTEL site, an' found out a bunch of new stuff there, too.

Now, what I REALLY wanna know is how to get at the memory slot that's underneath the keyboard on an INSPIRON 1000 -- to replace the original stick that went bad, an' add  another 256 stick to bring it up to capacity. There's nothin' in the Manual, an' it's really buggin' me !!

Anyways, thanks-a-ton for the Hyperthreading info !!

Peace.
Slik   

You're welcome.

 

For some reason there is no information in the manual regarding replacing the RAM.  That machine has only a single memory slot, but the good news is that memory is fairly cheap and you could put in 512M at fairly reasonable cost.  With XP, you will be glad to have at least 512.  128 barely works at all, 256 is acceptable if you don't do much and 512 is good.

 

Do you see any removable covers on the bottom?  Normally the memory is in one of those.  You take out two screws, pull the cover and there it is.  The I1000 is an economy machine and maybe they saved a few cents by skipping the removable cover.

 

Peter 

OK, I didn't read carefully enough before.  Here is what Dell says:

 

Memory
Integrated memory 256-MB DDR 1
Memory module connector one SODIMM socket
Memory module capacity 256 MB
Memory type 2.5-V SODIMM
Minimum memory 256 MB
Maximum memory 512 MB

 

So, it sounds like 256M might be inaccessible or possibly not removable (that seems pretty dumb) because it says you only have one socket (that's what I saw the first time).  You have 256M integrated, but it might show up as less because the integrated graphics are using some (256M - 32M =  224M)

 

It looks like you can only put in 256M modules, which is also a bit weird.

 

I suspect there is panel to remove to put memory in the socket (actually I just saw the picture in the manual.  It is a square panel in one corner on the bottom with one screw holding it on).  I'm not sure how you get to the other one.  You might need to take the laptop apart to get to the motherboard.  Sorry, I don't know that machine and the documentation is not very good (normally Dell provides very nice docs).

 

Peter 

Aw, JEEEEEEZ, Pete -- now I really am corn-fused about that Inspiron 1000 memory -- 'cause the peeps at another DELL Forum thread were talkin' about it, an' they're goin' on about there bein' 2 memory slots, 1 of which is "under the keyboard"  -- here's a quote--
  "Don't worry about the slot under the keyboard, just put your 256mb module in the open slot under the cover on the bottom of the computer as i said in my earlier replys. Once you have the module in place the computer will show 512mb RAM, and yes thats the max this little baby will do, but believe me you will notice a difference !" 

Acting on this info, I ordered 2 new 256mb sticks from DELL, which I was gonna attempt to install, providing I could get to the 1 that's "under the keyboard".

The single stick that's in there now only shows 224 mhz on the "System Info" window. I assumed, perhaps mistakenly, that adding a 256 stick to the machine's slot that's under the bottom cover to reach a total of 512, there must be a slot somewhere else to hold the other 256 stick. Haven't seen the machine as yet, but plan to install the memory an' do a general tune-up, including installin' WinHomeXP SP3, as soon as that memory arrives.
The 224 number doesn't sound right, so I wanna replace both sticks @ 256mb to get to the 512mb max capacity. Please tell me that I haven't gone bonkers !!

Thanks again,

Slik

Thanks-a-ton for the clarification, Pete -- especially on the factory memory only showin' up as 224mhz -- I was afraid there was somethin' wrong in there !!
I s'pose I'll just snap in the 256 stick an' be done with it -- an' eat the extra stick that's already been shipped as part of my on-goin' "Pay as You Learn" program !!

I will, however, have a go at locatin' the primary memory, just in case there's an error in the manual -- which often happens, even among the best.

I'll post my findings, an' letcha know how it all turns out.

Thanks again,
Slik

Yo, Pete !!

I did notice somethin' different with the Hyperthreading turned "ON" -- I run PCTools' "Spyware Doctor", which is a decent anti-spyware program that runs constantly in the background -- an eats memory like an alligator eats kittens -- which slows the machine noticably.

There is a definite difference with the Hyperthreading turned "ON" -- much quicker -- an' I turned it back off an' on again to be sure it wasn't my imagination.

I hadn't noticed it at first, since I had shut down the Spyware Doctor while tinkerin' with the different settings. 

Thanks again for your input !!

Slik 

Yes, that it exactly what it is good for!  I think for someone with general purpose use like yourself, HT can be good.  My brother had it at one time and said he thought it made a positive difference.

 

About the memory.  Make sure you test it well with a memory tester.  Dell has one built into the diagnostics (F12 at boot), but it doesn't seem to be as good as third party memory testers (memtest86+ and Microsofts) that are free.  You could probably return the memory you don't need or just keep it as a spare.

 

Going to 512M should make a difference when you have multiple applications running.

 

Peter 

Very good reading about hyperthreading.I have Dimension 2400 that test things on before I try things on my better computer. I don,t have a dual core yet but I plan on building one in the future.Working on P4's to get experience. How do I turn hyperthreading on this 2400 or can I? If not can I change the clock speeeds and
multipliers? By the way the the chip is P4 Northwood 2.4 Ghz.Thanks

To be honest widja, Traff,  I don't know much about the Hyperthreading -- I was in "Setup"  (the blue screen) an' was workin' my way down the list -- just seein' what was happenin', for the purpose of maybe learnin' somethin'.
I stumbled upon the "Hyperthreading", an' noticed that the factory default setting was set to "OFF".

Bein' either brave or crazy, I turned it "ON" -- just to see what would happen.

After exiting "Setup" , I booted to Windows XP Home, an' went about my normal boojy-woojy, but didn't notice any appreciable difference.

Later, I came sniffin' around over here, an' asked about the Hyperthreading, an' if anybody knew why it was turned "OFF" at the factory an' noting that I hadn't seen any difference with it turned "ON".
The good gentleman explained that Hyperthreading was of no advantage unless multiple programs were being run simultaneously -- which I don't normally do.
However, I recalled that there IS a memory-suckin' program (Spyware Doctor) that runs in the background whenever I'm fully booted, but that I had switched it off while monkeyin' around with the settings.

When I turned the Spyware Doctor back on, I noticed immediately that every thing ran faster with the Hyperthreading turned "ON".

In fact, the Spyware Doctor slowed my rig down so much that I would turn it off and leave it off -- running it only once a week to check for demons.

Now, with the Hyperthreading turned on, I can run the Spyware Doctor all the time, an' it don't slow my rig down a bit !!

As for which models of DELL computers have the Hyperthreading Technology, or which chipsets have that feature, I have no clue. An' changin' clock speeds is a bit out of my league.

All I know about my own rig is that the chip is a P4 @ 3.06 Ghz.

It came as a gift from my son-in-law, Rodney Mullen, with two 512 memory sticks an' a 160-GB Hard Drive, which I replaced with two 1-Gig sticks and a Seagate 500GB Drive.

I'm kinda on the edge, runnin' Windows XP Home with SP THREE (v.3264) -- it's a beta, an' hasn't been released yet -- but there doesn't seem to be any big hazards, an' it seems a bit faster navigating around within Windows.

Like you, I have an old "Tin Lizzie"  to practice on -- a DELL P3,600Mhz -- with 768 Mhz of memory, a 60 GB drive, an' a 5-port USB 2.0 PCI card, Mad Dog external DVD/CD+RW, an a 17" flatscreen monitor an' UPS battery backup. I loaded the SP3 in the old machine first, an' there was a BIG difference in speeds between SP2 an' SP3 !!

Tomorrow, I'm gonna monkey with a friend's old Inspiron 1000 laptop -- add another 256 memory stick an' load that SP3 in there -- right over top of the old SP1 that's in there now, an' by-pass SP2 altogether. If it don't work, I can load SP2 in there an' stack SP3 in behind it. Of course, I don't know what I'm doin', but I'll have a lot of fun doin' it !!!

I see you're runnin' NETGEAR Wireless #624 with the WPN111 adapter -- an' so am I. I have the router near my new machine, and get an "Excellent" signal, with the WPN111 plugged in the back . The old DELL has the newer WPN111T installed -- it's a few rooms away, and thru a cinder-block wall, but shows a "Very Good" signal all the time -- the WPN111T is supposed to be a better reciever, which is why I put it farthest away from the router. I had a hellacious time gettin' that thing syncronized with my McAfee "Total Protection" package, which I run on both machines.

I noticed that you have some different kinds of computers -- but I'm strictly a DELL person -- very happy with my DELLs, an' like their " upgradeablity", as well as their reliability -- in 8 years, I've had two failures -- both with non-DELL memory sticks -- NEVER a failure of DELL equipment -- even after doin' a lot of stupid things that common sense would tell me not to do !!

My most recent failure was with a 1-Gig memory stick that I had purchased at that famous parts house whose name rhymes with " Cry's" -- an' my machine would not boot at all -- I gave a call to DELL support, an' the gal had me diagnosed an' runnin' again in just a few minutes. She hooked me up with a new 1-gig stick at a great price, with free shipping, an' the new stick was there in 3 days. I was so pleased with the whole experience that I ordered some memory for my friend's laptop on the 7th, and it got here on the 10th -- the free shipping was lightning fast, the way I likes it !!

An' somehow, I wandered over here, where I've met someone new an' learned somethin' every time I logged on.

I guess you could call me a happy camper, but I don't go campin' much any more -- they don't let me out of this rubber-walled room !!!

Peace.
Slik

 

 

 

Oh, one more point about turning HT on/off.  If Windows was installed with HT off, you might need to do a repair install when you turn it on.  Otherwise Windows will be setup for single processor (HT looks like a multi-processor setup) mode.

 

To check, look in task manager and see if you have 2 CPU graphs or for the Performance Tab/View/CPU History  shows Once  Graph per CPU.  When you can see two graphs, HT is working.

 

Peter 

A 2.4G Northwood doesn't have HT.

 

In general, unless you buy the extreme editions, the multipliers are locked.

 

Once you try a dual core, you will never go back.  I now use a quad core on my primary machine.  I can run 3 regression tests in parallel and watch HDTV and the machine is still very responsive.  You really can't tell it is busy.  With a single core (no HT), once you run 1 CPU intensive job, the machine comes to a standstill. 

 

Peter 

Thanks for the tip, Pete -- I tried to do what you wrote, but couldn't find "Task Manager", an' got corn-fused --

Instead, I went to My Computer> System Properties> Device Manager> Processors.
A double click on "Processors" showed 2 CPUs @ 3.06 GHz.

 

When 1 processor shows up as 2, is that the definition of "Dual-Core" ?? Would it be reasonable to say that what shows up as a second CPU is like a "virtual" or "shadow" of the actual physical CPU !??

 I notice that the first processor on the list has a suffix "0" -- the one beneath it has the suffix "1".

It appears to me that the machine sees 2 processors, so I'm gonna assume that we're talkin' Dual-Core in this instance.

 

As for how the OS treats the dual-core processor, I'm completely lost --

If the OS performs differently with HT turned on than it does with HT turned off , then it must recognize the difference and function accordingly.

 

I would think it would be time for a re-install if the OS DIDN'T recognize the "2nd" processor with the HT turned on.

 

In my case, I know that the OS was installed on my 500GB drive with the HT turned off (factory default), but I don't know if the OS saw 2 processors at that setting.

 

I s'pose the quickest way to know for sure is to check the processors under both HT settings, which I may do tomorrow if the wife will let me out of the dog-house !! 

 

Thanks again for the info, it's much appreciated !!

 

Peace.
Slik

 

 

 

 

Good job.  That is another way to do it.  If you see 2 CPUs, then it means that you have 2 processors (CPUs in different chips), 2 cores (2 CPUs on the same chip) or 2 virtual cores (HT ... 1 CPU but it is pretending to be 2).  In your case you have 2 virtual cores.

 

You will want to learn how to use task manager.  It tells you a lot of very useful information about what is happening on your machine.  Just press control-alt-delete to bring it up.  You can see what processes are running and how busy each virtual core is.

 

The OS does behave differently with one or 2 cores.  I believe with XP that there are different kernels (core of the OS) that are needed depending on which mode you are in.  It could be that Dell's installed version of the OS already has multiprocessors supported.  Others have found that they needed to do a repair install when switching from 1 to multiple processors (or cores or HT).   A repair install is used to reload OS files based on hardware changes or file corruption without wiping the disk and starting over.

 

Linux is (was) the same way.  They had a single processor kernel and a multiprocessor kernel.  I think that it has now fused into one, because the multiprocessor version can clearly deal with one core as a  subset.

 

All of this academic to you.  If you see multiprocessors, then you are good to go. 

 

Peter 

Been following this thread and determined I have the option to turn it on. I am not seeing 2 cpu's anywhere. I have no problem turning this on but the worry is there about the issues stated about the chances around losing my files while doing a repair or reload of OS.I see this one has been solved. Let me know what everybody is thinking. Might have to start new thread. Thanks